Dear Editor,
The core objective of the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) is to provide social security to poor and vulnerable employees wherever they work. Social security is very important for the well-being of workers and their families. Workers must have income security and access to health care and NIS has a priority role in this.
Recent reports in the dailies about mining accidents and the resultant loss of lives have caused me to silently weep and I now openly enquire if the dependents of the deceased workers are entitled to death benefit or survivor’s benefit.
The entitlement to death benefit is premised on the deceased worker being classified as an employed person and the accident arising out of and in the course of the deceased’s employment. In the case of survivor’s benefit, whether classified as an employed person or a self-employed person, the deceased worker must have made at least 250 contributions. There is no contribution condition to claim death benefit.
It is a well-known fact that, mine owners/managers deem their workers to be self-employed persons in order to reduce administrative overheads by not having to pay the employer’s portion of a contribution which is 8.4% of the worker’s insurable wages.
Workers are myopic; they do not see down the road and are not disciplined enough to register and meet their financial obligations, to wit the payment of contributions as self-employed persons at the rate of 12.5% of their insurable wages.
I refer to the letter from Brentnol Henry in the Stabroek News of June 25, under the caption ‘National Insurance reserved questions should be heard in accordance with the rules’ which is informative.
Whether a person is or was an employed person or a self-employed person is also a reserved question pursuant to Regulation 3(b) of the (Determination of Claims and Questions) Regulations. To determine whether the deceased workers were employed persons (eligible for death benefit) or self-employed persons (eligible for survivor’s benefit), the General Manager has to make an application to the NIS Board in accordance with the rules of Regulation 4 of the (Determination of Claims and Questions) Regula-tions. This, I respectfully suggest, should be done for all workers in the mining sector.
I am advised that there are in excess of 4000 mine owners/managers and to obtain decisions in respect of each will not only be cumbersome and tedious, but a costly exercise. Therefore, I politely suggest that special regulations be framed to govern workers in the mining sector as has been done for share-fishermen who are treated as employed persons.
The benefits, if this were to be done, are numerous and will not only boost the National Insurance fund, but satisfy the obligations of the Scheme by ensuring workers are protected from the inherently cruel and unforgiving mining industry.
There must be clear definitions for the mine owners/managers and the workers, who will include, but not be limited to pit-men, marrack-men, jet-men, sailors and cooks. The system employed to remunerate share-fishermen could also be adopted.
In concluding, I implore that these accidents be a catalyst for change and that the politicians and the management of NIS demonstrate the political and administrative will to bring it about.
May I use this opportunity to enquire what options are available to a person whose application for contributions to be treated as paid on the due date is not heard in accordance with the rules, and who hasn’t the financial ability to engage an attorney-at law?
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address
provided)